Proceedings - Translation Concepts

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Mira Kadric (Vienna) EU-High-Level Scientific Conference Series MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings Court Interpreter Training in a European Context Contents 1 Minimum standards for procedural safeguards 2 Presentation and evaluation of cross-language training 3 Responses and discussion of results 4 Conclusions 5 References Abstract Today, there is a growing demand in Europe for translation and interpretation services in those languages for which, until now, there was no training offered. This, of course, meant that there were no professional translators and interpreters. The same situation can be seen in the field of court interpretation. This is one of the reasons why the European Commission has been working on the quality of translation and interpretation in courts and other authorities of the EU member states for several years. This paper presents a pilot training scheme for remedying this unsatisfactory situation and also investigates its didactic potential. Above all, it explores the question of whether it is possible to meet the increasing demand for qualified translators and interpreters by introducing alternative methods of training. 1 The EU sets minimum standards for procedural safeguards The work undertaken by the Commission in this area deals with criminal proceedings in the EU member states. The Commission first carried out an extensive consultation process, the results of which were included in the proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. 1 The work of the Commission originates from the presidency conclusions of the Tampere European Council (15 and 16 October, 1999), which, among other things, formulate the mutual recognition of court decisions as a goal of legal policy at European level. However, it has proved very difficult to achieve the mutual recognition of court decisions. The examination of specific cases has shown that the EU member states have doubts as to whether the examined foreign decisions were made within a high-quality procedure. Hence, the Commission has assumed for years that the establishment of minimum standards for court procedures is an indispensable prerequisite for the full mutual recognition of court decisions. As regards criminal proceedings, this means that the rights of suspects and defendants should be harmonized within the EU, since a uniform protection level for suspects and defendants would make the application of the principle of mutual recognition much easier. The program of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters from 15 January 2001 stipulates that the extent of the mutual recognition is linked with the existence and the contents of particular parameters that are decisive for the efficiency of the 1 Cf. COM(2004)328 final: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/com328_28042004_en.pdf © Copyright 2005-2007 by MuTra 174
MuTra 2005 – Challenges of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings Mira Kadric criminal proceedings. According to the Council and the Commission these parameters contain mechanisms for the legal protection of suspects as well as the prescribed common minimum standards. As professional mobility, tourism, migration and refugee movements are reaching new heights, the number of foreign defendants is also increasing in all the member states. The Commission is thus working on common minimum standards and putting the emphasis on the appropriate protection of foreign suspects and defendants. Organized crime is also increasingly spreading across the borders. In February 2003 the Commission presented a Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings. 2 The aim of the Commission is to harmonize the rights of suspects and defendants on the basis of already existing international agreements (European Convention on Human Rights, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union). The Commission’s primary goal is to establish minimum standards. The legal basis of the proposal is article 31 of the Treaty on European Union in the version of the Treaty of Nice, which includes common action in the field of judicial cooperation regarding criminal cases. According to the Commission, the proposal for a framework decision represents the necessary addition to the measures regarding mutual recognition, whose aim is to improve the efficiency of criminal prosecution. The procedural rights determined in the proposal for a framework decision can be divided into five areas: 1. the right to (free) legal advice 2. the right to the interpretation and translation of important documents 3. the right of persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings to receive appropriate attention 4. the right to communicate, inter alia, with consular authorities in the case of foreign suspects, 5. the right to information. The right to interpretation and translation of important documents, which is dealt with in chapter 2, regards all the stages of a proceeding, including meetings with the legal adviser. The text of the proposal determines expressly that the right to make use of the services of an interpreter free of charge also applies to persons with a hearing disorder or a speech defect. This means that this right also encompasses sign language interpretation. As regards the right to free translations, the draft determines that the responsible authority decides which documents have to be translated. However, the legal adviser of the suspect has the right to demand the translation of further documents (article 7, clause 2 of the draft). 3 Additionally, the draft prescribes expressly the consultation of sufficiently qualified translators and interpreters. Article 9 of the draft also contains a real innovation in this field – the use of audio and video recordings in all proceedings in which translators and interpreters have to be called in. In case of dispute, the parties would receive a copy of the recording. Otherwise, the recording would only be used for checking whether the interpretation has been carried out correctly. The Commission has thus clearly advocated an up-to-date interpretation of article 6, paragraph 3 lit e ECHR (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), which, up to now, has not been enforced in the practice of criminal 2 Cf. COM(2003)75 final from 19 February 2003. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2003/com2003_0075en01.pdf 3 For Austria and for Germany the issue of the amount of interpretations and translations is very relevant because Austria and Germany have already been convicted in this context before the European Court of Human Rights (case Kamasinski vs. Austria, verdict of the European Court of Human Rights from 19 December 1989; case Öztürk vs. Federal Republic of Germany, verdict of the European Court of Human Rights from 21 February 1984). 175
Page 1 and 2:
Marie Curie EU High Level Scientifi
Page 3:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I: Positioni
Page 6 and 7:
MuTra 2005 - Challenges of Multidim
Page 8 and 9:
2.1 Conceptual Foundations MuTra 20
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
EU-High-Level Scientific Conference
Page 22 and 23:
2 DVD is here to stay MuTra 2005 -
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
3.1.1 Intersemiotic translation MuT
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Yvonne Griesel (Berlin) EU-High-Lev
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Minako O’Hagan (Dublin) EU-High-L
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
EU-High-Level Scientific Conference
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
MuTra2005 - Challenges of Multidime
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
4.5 Generalization MuTra 2005 - Cha
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129: Source Culture MuTra 2005 - Challen
Page 130 and 131: 5.6 Media-specific constraints MuTr
Page 132 and 133: MuTra 2005 - Challenges of Multidim
Page 140 and 141: 4 Business aspects MuTra 2005 - Cha
Page 168 and 169: Language MuTra 2005 - Challenges of
Page 214 and 215: Susanne Wagner (Halle) EU-High-Leve
Page 224 and 225: EU-High-Level Scientific Conference
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
show all

Proceedings - Translation Concepts

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?